So, police can just shut down an entire city?

It’s disturbing to me that so few are disturbed by the actions of the police to shut down the entire city of Boston for nearly a day. More disturbing is how easily people acquiesce. I wasn’t aware that the government has the authority to invoke martial law.

Can a municipal or state government suspend civil rights for public safety? What statute or ordinance was cited? Do Colorado. Gov. Hickenlooper or Denver Mayor Michael Hancock have the same authority? If I were to leave my house during such an order, would I be arrested or detained? Can they enter my house without my consent?

A state where the police have the authority to detain the physical movements of its citizens by fiat is a police state.

The ultimate irony is that only after the “cower in place” orders were lifted and after an exhaustive house-to-house search was conducted, a normal citizen exercising his simple right to leave his house discovered the person eluding authorities for days.

Reed Nakazono, Denver

This letter was published in the April 24 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[1]. Follow eLetters[2] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Thank you, Mr. Nakazono!
All during the Boston lockdown, I kept wondering about the same kinds of things.
Suppose a citizen said “I’d be only too happy to cooperate, officer. So, cooperate with me: Show me your search warrant.”
Did the police comply?
Or did they simply physically pick up said citizen, set him or her aside, and moved right on in, searching as they pleased, then put the citizen into their database as a known trouble-maker and radical?
Or was everyone too slack-jawed to even remember to ask about search warrants?

#2 Comment By kelcy On April 24, 2013 @ 1:15 am

In response…

Para 1…… the Gov`t does most assuredly have the authority to invoke martial law.
Yes…. a municipal or state government suspend civil rights for public safety?
Yes and Yes….. if I were to leave my house during such an order, would I be arrested or detained? Can they enter my house without my consent?
True…..a state where the police have the authority to detain the physical movements of its citizens by fiat is a police state.

#3 Comment By Steve R On April 24, 2013 @ 6:43 am

Actually what you saw is a community working together to help catch a despicable terrorist and a waste of a human life. Leave it to liberals to find fault with the incredible effort of the FBI and BPD that led to the quick capture of this terrorist. You liberals are pathetic, because you’re the same Aholes that would be complaining left and right that BPD didn’t do enough to catch this this guy. You are also the same people that would have defied the orders and gone outside only to have gotten caught in the crossfire or been detained by police for questioning, then turned around and sued because you were the one at fault. This is a perfect example of the “no accountability” attitude that liberals posses, which is ruining this country.

#4 Comment By eddie47d On April 24, 2013 @ 7:29 am

They can do it under all kinds of emergencies such as hurricanes, tornado ravaged cities ,flooding and even situations of terrorism. Were you willing to be the next victim out of vanity? There are circumstances where a city or state shouldn’t be allowed to invoke a “police state” such as a public demonstration or assembly so this is an important topic.

#5 Comment By eddie47d On April 24, 2013 @ 7:40 am

You must have Liberals confused with Libertarians who denounce the police all the time. Libertarians believe anything and everything should be legal including buying and owning bomb making components. Liberals want a safer and saner world . (you know, those bleeding hearts). I personally like Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians yet they all have their quirks that drive us all nuts.

Extremists in both liberalism and conservatism end up at the same place as anarchists.

#7 Comment By Dano2 On April 24, 2013 @ 9:01 am

I think the disaffected young men we label as terrists all over the world saw how easy it was to disrupt Merkin cities. All you have to do is have a cr@ppy little bomb, some anger issues, and be a young man. Those with a little more emotional maturity will have an exit plan next time to travel to another city the next day to shut it down.

That is: our response made it easier for the next boys to do their terra. IMHO.

Best,

D

#8 Comment By Stephen Blecher On April 24, 2013 @ 9:46 am

In exceptional circumstances the government has the authority to lock down the whole city. Would Mr Nakazono prefer thousands and thousands of people running around all over the place while police were trying to conduct a search. Does Mr Nakazono know for a fact that the police didn’t have warrants? The residents already knew that a terror suspect was at large in Watertown. If Mr. Nakazono lived in Watertown, and a uniformed police officer appeared at his door, would he have the guts to give the police officer a hard time?

#9 Comment By holyreality On April 24, 2013 @ 10:49 am

Some time before 911 Osama Bin Laden warned America that we would no longer be the open society we grew up with, that we would oppress ourselves and become our own destruction.

This Boston overreaction fulfills his prophecy.

Is America truly the home of the brave if we let two nobodies accomplish this?

#10 Comment By holyreality On April 24, 2013 @ 10:59 am

Wow,
Calm down, we are all friends here.
The Community working together? This phrase smells suspiciously like socialist talk.

Let me get this straight, it is big government liberals that find fault with out of control government overreacting to a criminal case?
With Social Media mucking up intel into dysinformation, everybody had to overreact. Without any protocols to twitter, facebook et al; that would ameliorate the masses of data flooding the news, Boston will only prove the template for future police state actions that Boston began.

Much like the nearby shot heard round the world, Boston could indicate that America is becoming a land where a homeland security occupation is keeping us safe.
Was it Ben Franklin who quipped a gem about freedom and safety?

#11 Comment By holyreality On April 24, 2013 @ 11:18 am

You ask about the guts to give the police officer a hard time? It depends on whether this “officer” is wearing a battle helmet and full body armor holding an MP5 or his blue uniform.
Exceptional circumstances is the thin end of the wedge. It was exceptional circumstances that led to the PATRIOT Act that was passed when nobody read it. This paved the way for a bill of rights clearing regime that established our nascent police state we refuse to see today.
Massive overreaction to what ended up being handled by local citizen is the blueprint of future America the land of the err; safe.

#12 Comment By primafacie On April 24, 2013 @ 11:25 am

For a city that was “locked down,” there sure seemed to be a lot people and vehicles about, from what I saw on television. Even in that Watertown suburb where the bomber was hiding. Just an observation.

#13 Comment By Dano2 On April 24, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

Do we get what we deserve?

Best,

D

#14 Comment By peterpi On April 24, 2013 @ 12:58 pm

When the last right of the Bill of Rights is ripped to shreds and given Last Rites to improve efforts to catch people deemed wastes of human life, and “you” are deemed such, what is going to protect you then?

#15 Comment By peterpi On April 24, 2013 @ 1:00 pm

I don’t own a single gun, and I consider myself liberalitarian. I favor government, socially liberal, economically, liberal, support the Bill of Rights, and question government power even as I support government.

#16 Comment By Stephen Blecher On April 24, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

This is kind of late, but the situation was a lock down, not martial law, and civil rights were not suspended. All it did was order citizens to remain is place until the danger is over. There are lockdowns all the time, though this one was very large-scale. Since 9/11, the police have been militarized to some extent. Whether or not it’s a good thing is the beyond the scope of this discussion.

#17 Comment By peterpi On April 24, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

I assume you were not physically there.
On the TV channel I saw, the only people about wore uniforms, and the only vehicles about had lights and sirens.
For a guy who thinks nutrition labels on food items, or FDA advisories about tobacco products, is government intrusion, you sure have an easy time with the police ordering everyone indoors, and businesses and private and public transportation to shut down, in an entire town.

#18 Comment By peterpi On April 24, 2013 @ 1:09 pm

I’m still wondering why the brothers Tsarnaev hung around?

#19 Comment By peterpi On April 24, 2013 @ 1:10 pm

If we adopt police state tactics to defeat terrorism, what have we won?

#20 Comment By Dano2 On April 24, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

Charlie Rose last night had on Phil Mudd discussing that, among other things. His take was they simply didn’t think about what to do after it was done, and he thought the younger bro will regret doing it – not a true jihadi, just some kid following his bro.

Best,

D

#21 Comment By peterpi On April 24, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

Meaning no disrespect whatever to the dead and injured caused by these two creeps, but the younger one is the regrettable one.
For whatever reason, the older brother became disaffected, disillusioned, etc. The younger brother seemed to be fitting in, finding his way, and then filial devotion led him into darkness.
At minimum, he’s facing a loooong time in prison. Maximum, he’s facing a nasty syringe.

#22 Comment By guest On April 24, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

This coming from the guys that don’t think Americans are smart enough to choose their own light bulbs?

Which is more of a fascist’s state? One that tells everyone to stay inside
when an armed terrorist is in the neighborhood or one that tells
religious people they need to provide health insurance with certain
coverage that violates their consciences?

#23 Comment By guest On April 24, 2013 @ 1:55 pm

Are you changing your stand on the 2nd Amendment then? And renewing allegiance to the 10th?

#24 Comment By Grant On April 24, 2013 @ 1:59 pm

Read the Constitution, in particular the 4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated…” The operative word is “unreasonable.” In this circumstance, the searches of homes were reasonable on the basis of searching for a dangerous criminal at large.
As we often hear from so many people on this comments page, all rights have limits, and none are absolute. If it is OK to infringe on the 2nd Amendment on the basis of “if only one life…”, then it is surely OK to conduct searches without warrants in some instances. When is the last time the TSA guy at the airport showed you a warrant?

#25 Comment By Fowler On April 24, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

“Give the people what they want. Good and hard.” Menken

#26 Comment By bleeth On April 24, 2013 @ 2:54 pm

It’s quite possible they thought they would never be caught. I was actually amazed at all our friends and coworkers that believed this as well.

Just my opinion but with the advent of cameras in cellphones, the social media and security cameras everywhere, there’s little you can do to hide an act like this.

#27 Comment By peterpi On April 24, 2013 @ 3:01 pm

LOL
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken

#28 Comment By peterpi On April 24, 2013 @ 3:59 pm

Nope to the 2nd. It’s not in any danger.
Nope to the 10th. I don’t have an attitude towards the 10th. It’s so broadly worded and ambiguous, the states could slip anything through in the name of “freedom”.

#29 Comment By Robtf777 On April 24, 2013 @ 4:30 pm

“So, police can just shut down an entire city?”
==========
Was it “just” the police…..or was it the city government…..or did that call go even higher?

Regardless…..we have to look at the “why”……as in “why” was the city “shut down” and did anything good come from having it “shut down”?

There seems to have been a clear public safety issue…….that was simply an expansion of what happens at an airport when security is breached and safety becomes an issue.

At an airport, who has heard that occasionally ALL planes are emptied……and ALL passengers on ALL concourses are “re-screened”? It happens every once in a while. Public Safety.

In the case of Boston, the outcome was that clearly those two knuckleheads WERE a PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT…….had MORE EXPLOSIVES……MORE GUNS/AMMO…..SHOT COPS…..and the situation was resolved without any further loss of life to anyone other than a police officer and one of the knuckleheads…….and no apparent injuries other than to some cops and the other knucklehead.

As far as “protecting and serving” the General Public was concerned…..if no “civilian” was killed or injured because of the “shut down”……then that can hardly be a “losing” outcome considering the FACT that those knuckleheads WERE armed pretty well……and WERE a DEFINITE THREAT to the General Public (3 killed/ over 200 injured because of them).

Will that become “standard operating procedures” for future cities in the event of another terrorist attack? Maybe. Maybe not.

But airports the size of DIA are “shut down.” Entire buildings are evacuated. Obviously they couldn’t “evacuate” the entire city. But they did the best they could do at the time……given what they considered were extraordinary circumstances……..and keeping in mind that “Public Safety” is a Very High Priority.

But, again, those who think that “Boston being shut down” is just the “start” of the Rise of The Antichrist and His One World Government……..and we should “be afraid” of our own governments (local, state, federal) because of that action…….they have their own problems that they need help for.

Take a deep breath and relax.

#30 Comment By primafacie On April 24, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

I wasn’t. Just what I saw on television. People moving all over the place behind news reporters, who obviously weren’t ordered to stay put. It wasn’t life as usual, and it wasn’t a ton of people and traffic, but there were people out.

#31 Comment By Tbone On April 24, 2013 @ 5:47 pm

Neither.

#32 Comment By doug5280 On April 24, 2013 @ 7:54 pm

“Would Mr Nakazono prefer thousands and thousands of people running
around all over the place while police were trying to conduct a search?”

This happens all the time when cops are conducting a search … all the time as in EVERY DAY! It is called freedom … relative freedom though it may be any longer.

Should a million people go on lockdown now on every police search?

#33 Comment By Jill On April 24, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

The Boston “lockdown” was a request, nothing more. People were certainly free to leave their homes, and no one had to let any officer into their home if they didn’t want to. People chose to cooperate, so that the suspect couldn’t escape on busy streets that were filled with people, or shoot and kill others.
The fact that people cooperated and didn’t go out is what led the suspect to hide in the boat, and is what allowed for his eventual capture.
I find it incredible that you all are complaining that citizens and law enforcement worked together to capture a terrorist suspect.

#34 Comment By Steve R On April 24, 2013 @ 11:06 pm

Jill don’t look for any logic with the usual liberal suspects on this message boar

#35 Comment By Michael On April 25, 2013 @ 1:22 am

A search warrant is not necessary when lives and/or public safety are in immediate danger, per the Supreme Court. It’s the same reason that police aren’t required to obtain search warrants before entering a building to investigate a bomb threat or things of that nature.

#36 Comment By holyreality On April 25, 2013 @ 10:40 am

Yet you just described a state one step shy of martial law without a curfew.

#37 Comment By holyreality On April 25, 2013 @ 10:42 am

The Fascist state is one where the big corporations and banksters OWN the government whether we elect their puppets or not.